Blogroll

Posts tagged ‘PeTA’

not my original image: this is from a burger king ad in the Netherlands

Women buy fashion magazines all the time which feature how to do your eye-shadow in different ways, so how is this bad. Tasty? oh right, comparing women to a piece of meat? Sorry, this vegan is not offended by the Burger King ad.

However, this Peta ad, that compares going vegan to becoming an abuser, who will bash the women in their life – this does offend me.

The pimping of women has been discussed extensively by vegans and non-vegans alike, their I’d rather go naked than wear fur might have been effective the very first time it came out. But now they have women getting naked for everything I’d rather go naked than be a meat-eater? How does being naked sell vegetarianism – because Peta do not advocate veganism

And why is this celebrity – of some sort – naked for circuses?

I’m assuming Olivia Munn is a celebrity, Peta love naked celebrities in their advertising. Because it is so empowering to be naked, that’s why Obama turns up to the Oval Office in just his tighty-whiteys.

Who goes to the circus wearing no clothes? Peta have lost the plot.

Give me a Burger King ad anyday, at least it is only the woman’s eyelid that is being exploited (!)

And, let’s not forget, Burger King has the Alicia Silverstone tick of approval

text of image below: if you are in a crunch and need a super quick yummy flirt meal, the burger king veggie burger is so yummie… (10:48 AM – 13 May 2010)

athough at the time of the tweet, BK veggie contained eggs and milk, the recipe may have since changed, I don’t know, but then I don’t eat them

This is not to say that I agree with anything that Glenn Beck says, but there people who are champions of climate change, such as Al Gore, to refuse to make the change to a vegan diet, when Animal Agriculture is one of the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

An interesting discussion, from 2007 about PeTA – not an environmental group – and Al Gore.

Animal Agriculture exacerbates climate change.

I just wish it wasn’t down to Glenn Beck to point this out.

I wish that instead of having people in elected positions of power who deny the science behind global warming, we had people who took it seriously.

But until that time, we can all go vegan and stay vegan and no that by doing so we are making a positive move to reduce our own personal impact on the environment.

– Cut the vegan-cheese eaters some slack. Cut the meat eaters some slack. You are too militant and give vegans a bad name.

I even had one person say that I am too critical of meat eaters and that makes me a bad vegan. She justified her OPINION saying:

“I fight for animal rights, but I’m no vegan…”

Say what?

No really, say what? You fight for animal RIGHTS by EATING THEM??? or wearing them??

Did I miss something? How is it that you think consuming any animal product contributes to their rights?

I do not understand how someone who says they believe in animal rights can consume a product that is produced from slavery and torture and murder.

Perhaps they don’t truly believe at all.

Seriously, I do not understand – perhaps someone can explain it to me.

Eggs, consumed by animal loving vegetarians… Does this look like “animal rights”?

How about dairy production? What part of this Mercy for Animals video represents the rights of these cows?

Yeah, I can see how some animal rights activists might confuse this for liberation… um, no, I don’t.

Like a vegetarian who sees nothing exploitative with consuming, dairy or eggs or honey (some thoughtful reasons why this is a confusing rationale for a vegetarian to make, here: Why Veganism is a Feminist Issue). There seems to be a disconnect when people say they fight for animal rights, but continue to personally consume their corpses or products from their bodies.

If someone willingly and knowingly consumes any commercial animal product and does not see they horror behind it, they either cannot know where their food (and other consumables) comes from or they know and simply do not care.

If you want someone being NICE about the reason people consume corpses, perhaps a blog called “vegan animal liberation” is not the place to go looking for it.

and, Why is it that VEGANS are always having to modify what they do, so they don’t “offend” those who eat the corpses of slaughtered animals. Ooh careful, don’t want to upset the very people whose selfishness is the direct cause of this exploitation, cruelty, slavery and murder.

Oh, and is it even possible to be too MILITANT when it comes to fighting for justice and liberation for animals, all animals.

Why must I, as a vegan, compromise. (As I am so often told I must)

From a vegan viewpoint, people who say they fight for animal rights, but aren’t yet vegan, make the fight a whole lot harder.

Outsiders who look at these people see them eating animal products or wearing animal products, may think that it is acceptable.

This is a common complaint that vegans, and in particular abolitionist vegans make against groups like PETA. When PETA campaigns for larger cages for the chickens used by companies like McDonalds or KFC, the message that non-vegans get is that animal rights activists think that there is an acceptable size of the cages. A concept that Gary Francione has called “New Welfarism”.

Although, I do appreciate what they do, I appreciate that they can contribute to fight, and I accept that meat eaters can do a lot, I don’t understand how they can say what they are fighting for is animal rights, but rather “animal welfare”.

So, all that remains is for me to ask these people – if you know all that know, why are you not vegan?

Personally, I don’t believe it is possible to fight for animal RIGHTS and not be vegan.

This is not about being militant, it is about the suffering and cruelty and exploitation of the animals.

Feedback welcome

Some people may take offense to this, thinking that I am saying what they do is not good enough. I am just trying to add another side to the debate, and like this post The Dreaded Vegan Discussion… Critical Thoughts Encouraged… shows – the vegan community is large and diverse and all voices are (should be) encouraged.

Even a proud vegan like Alicia Silverestone gives in to temptation once in a while.

The actress and author of The Kind Diet confessed that sometimes she slips up — and dairy is her downfall.

“If I was at a party and there was a tray of cheese sitting there and I had had drinks, then I might have a bite,” Silverstone confessed to UsMagazine.com at an EcoTools event in NYC on Wednesday.

Silverstone doesn’t let her momentary lapse get to her, though. “It’s human,” she said. “It’s a really good reminder that sometimes you need to have what you remember is this good thing. Because then you have it, and you’re like, ‘Actually that wasn’t better than the recipes in my book,'” Silverstone told Us.

“Being flexible that way makes more people comfortable,” she said. “If I’m rigid about it and I’m perfect, then no one is going to be able to be like me because I’ll be this icey, rigid thing.”

Silverstone credits the vegan diet with better health. “I haven’t been to a doctor in 13 years,” she told Us. “I don’t have to worry about calories, I don’t have to worry about how I look because I know that what I do makes me look my best.”

For a start, I’m not sure there is such a concept as “cheating on a vegan diet” that would make it… um – not vegan!!

Like a virgin who cheats on virginity, gets pregnant and says, but I’m still a virgin, I only cheated a little!

Once we start having the concept of cheese-eating vegans, its a slippery slope til the word “vegan” means anything that people want it to mean.

There already is a perfectly valid word for someone who avoids meat but eats cheese….. VEGETARIAN!

Ever tried to define vegetarian?
A coworker told me once there are two types of vegetarian, those who eat meat and those who don’t, no matter how much I tried to tell her that a vegetarian who eats meat is not a vegetarian in any sense of the word, she would not be swayed…
there is the fish-eating-vegetarians, the fur-wearing-vegetarians, the chicken-and-bacon-eating-vegetarians, the vegetarian-3-days-a-week-and-steak-on-the-rest… the word “vegetarian” has become pretty much useless.

I was out to lunch with friends recently, one who is a vegetarian told the wait staff “I’m a vegetarian, no meat in the stir fry vegetables” it came loaded with prawns. She sent it back.

One of the reasons that the word / concept “vegan” was invented in World War 2 was that vegetarians on got rations for cheese and eggs as replacements for meat, and so began a campaign to be recognised as not consuming animals products. There are many other reasons too, but this was one of the earliest fights for recognition, that a vegan was something separate to vegetarian.

No one stands up when people assume that meat=cow/lamb but not meat=fish/chicken/pig.

The amount of vegetarians who eat fish or chicken or pork/ham/bacon is so strange. And people just accept that it is a sub-set of vegetarian.

So, when people praise Alicia Silverstone for her veganism, do we accept it, and think, but she does so much for her diet book, oops I mean veganism – or do we go, “yes, she might do a lot for animals but she really isn’t vegan herself”.

If it is okay for celebrities to cheat – how big of a celebrity does one have to be? Movies? Magazine covers? Is there like, a slide scale of celebrity A-list and B-list can eat cheese, maybe C-list – but once we hit the D-list celebrities they can’t get away with calling themselves “vegan who eats cheese”? When was vegan redefined as – something you do only when you are a commoner?

And as for Alicia’s comment that she eats cheese when she has a drink… Really, when was vegan redefined as – something you do only when sober?

Then there are instances of people who identify as “vegan” (such as this brainless moronic post: Alicia Silverstone cheats on vegan diet with dairy as her downfall which says sometimes a little egg and dairy are good, because it shows others we are flexible, and that the author herself “I end up having bit of dairy or a baked good with some egg in it” – hun, you ain’t vegan!!) complaining about those who forgo all cheese as being “militant”, I beg your pardon – not eating cheese is not being “militant”, it’s actually just plain Vegan.

I respect what Alicia has done for animals, and if people go vegan because they read her book, good for her, but people also go vegan when they visit PETA websites too, and many, many vegans don’t like PETA, and compare that to the hatred directed at Sea Shepherd for not being vegan, and people change because of SS too, so why the double standards? I really hope it isn’t because she is young, blond, white and famous.

How many vegans out there don’t eat cheese, or any other dairy, and find ways to get alternatives.

Why do people go through all sorts of contortions to redefine vegan. It is simple – not animal products. Not just sometimes, all the times. If you accidently eat something, then you move on, but for Alicia, it doesn’t seem to be an accident, it seems to be a pattern.

Take a look at her answer here:

What do you do when you crave non-vegan foods?

Alicia Silverstone.: Well, I never crave non-vegan foods, because vegan foods are so delicious. When I’m out and there are no vegetarian foods available, then I just make the best choices I can. Sometimes, it’s to eat nothing at all, or I’ll have the least offensive thing. Maybe there’s a salad with goat cheese, or potato salad with a little mayo. That’s what it’s about — making the best choices under all circumstances.Alicia Silverstone Quit Counting Calories – With Her “Kind Diet”

Actually… NO, veganism isn’t defined as “making the best choices” – it is In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.: Vegan

But, at what point do we stop watering down what “vegan” actually means, people call Bill Clinton vegan in the exact same interview he discusses eating fish (He actually seems to be making a lot of changes to his dies, it is “almost vegan”) – vegan has a meaning, do some people want that label so badly that they will ignore its meaning? I could call myself anything I want, doesn’t make it true, calling yourself “vegan” when you clearly aren’t doesn’t make veganism flexible, it totally strips all value and meaning from a word that has a specific definition.

… how would ordinary (by that I mean, Non celebrity) vegans who don’t “cheat” (which I find a silly word, its not “cheating” its eating cheese) feel going to a vegan restaurant being served cheese, honey, eggs, once that happens, the people who actually are vegan might have to explore a new word.

People who make comments like that, are they vegan themselves? I know how hard it is for me and vegans I know to live a vegan life, someone who doesn’t encounter difficulties occasionally, maybe there is a reason.

And as for “revoke her vegan powers”…. um, do you consider cheese and egg to be vegan? If you think there is something wrong with pointing out that Alicia Silverstone is a vegetarian, not a vegan, then there is definitely something wrong with your definition of vegan.

I had no appetite for meat sauce. Giving up beef wasn’t just some fleeting idea. Over the next year, I stopped eating all animals and animal products. I always thought going vegan would be difficult, but I genuinely don’t crave meat or cheese. And I feel happier, like I’m contributing to making the world a less violent place. Before that morning on the farm, I ranked an animal’s value based on how “human” it was. Now I don’t judge other beings that way—every animal has its own intelligence and sensitivities. They’re all lovely, worthwhile, and deserving of our respect.

Comparing the words used by both Alicia and Portia, and how they see veganism:
Alicia uses words like: “recipes”, “calories”, “look my best” and the words “Losing Weight” are in the title of her diet book
………. compare that to Portia de Rossi : “intelligence”, “sensitivities”, “respect”, “deserving”, “worthwhile”, “contributing to… the world”

And yet, Alicia is seen as a true champion of kindness and veganism, and Portia is just a bimbo lesbian.
Portia de Rossi, probably doesn’t get enough respect for her awareness.

—————————————————————————————————————
Articles copyright 2010 ‘Vegan Animal Liberation Alliance’. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Written by RedGlitter of VALA https://redglitterx.wordpress.com/

As an anti-censorship feminist, I don’t always understand the criticisms levelled against PeTA, for their use of women. PeTA is not a feminist group, they are not NOW (National Organization of Women) so they do not have feminist goals as their main objective. Their objective is animal… welfare? liberation? (I’m not sure what their objective is, other than promote PeTa).

I think that activists that use a diversity of tactics, a range from non-violent education to direct action may stand a better chance of ending the exploitation and enslavement of women, than those who narrow their arsenal down to an extremely limited range of tactics.

However, PeTA aren’t about Animal Rights, if they were, then it might be easier to overlook their exploitation of women, by justifying it, as – “if it saves an animal”.

PeTA, though, are not promoting Animal Rights, Animal Liberation or the end of animal slavery in any way at all.

Could someone tell me what all this “Go Vegetarian” nonsense is??

Among their many anti-animal-rights activists, they don’t even advocate people “Go Vegan”

And yet, the more moral outrage PeTA cause, the more publicity they attract, at the expense of real animal rights organisations and people. Leaving the general public to think that PeTA are representative of “Animal Rights Activists”. And leaving feminists to fight the exploitation of women.

Would it be acceptable to promote feminism – career success and a fulfilled life, by using the image of a fur-clad woman, stepping out of her luxury car with leather seats? No. So why is the degradation of women an acceptable tactic to promote animal welfare?

I have said it before, and I’m sure I will say it again… “PETA, you are not the voice of Animal Rights (so stop talking)”

—————————————————————————————————————
Articles copyright 2010 ‘Vegan Animal Liberation Alliance’. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Written by RedGlitter of VALA https://redglitterx.wordpress.com/

Former vegans and vegetarians use the concept of humane meat and welfare standards to continue to consume animals. The word animal by-product to describe milk and eggs is shown to also contribute to cruelty and exploitation. Features extreme graphic images of how animals become food. People who eat meat are entitled to know who their food used to be.

Taking one food as an example – the classic burger, this clip shows that for animals, it is not humane.

PETA have always said and done things that get more attention for themselves rather than the animals they claim to support, however, the recent comments from the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk that Vegans “should be living in cave” show just how out of touch with mainstream animal rights PETA have become.

This is not just speaking a case of speaking out against a successful animal welfare organisation. My disagreement with PETA, is for several reasons: they don’t think being vegan is necessary to being an animal rights activist, they give awards to slaughterhouse designers, they take in shelter animals and then kill them, they chase celebrities rather than save animals, and think naked women (or “chicks” in PETA parlance) are powerful, this is all subsidised by tax payers and diverts money from no-kill shelters.

I will talk about these things, because I think it is important for people to know where their money goes when they donate to a charity or buy their merchandise. PETA might call themselves “People for Ethical Treatment of Animals” but they are nothing more than a welfare group.

While PETA-bashing is not new, there comes a time, when you say enough is enough. And this is why:

Firstly, they don’t think being vegan is important to them. I’m sorry, did I miss something? How can any organisation that claims to fight for animals, or at least give that impression, not support veganism. If you aren’t vegan, you don’t care about animals.

The goal for many {animal} activists is simply to get more people
to eat less meat. “Absolute purists should be living in a cave,” says Ingrid Newkirk,
president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
“Anybody who witnesses the suffering of animals and has a glimmer of hope
of reducing that suffering can’t take the position that it’s all or nothing.
We have to be pragmatic. Screw the principle.”Weekday Vegetarians: TIME magazine

There are no hyphenated-vegans. There is no such thing as Ingrid thinks, as a purist-vegan. You are either a vegan OR you don’t care about animals. There is no such thing as a little bit of cruelty being acceptable, a little bit of rape being acceptable, a little bit of slaughter is acceptable.

It IS all or nothing. If you are Not a Vegan, you have given up your rights to speak on behalf of those whose body you consume, wear, or any other way use.

As this video shows…
Ingrid is concerned about “misery” and “suffering” and “pain” or “anything like that” or “humane euthanasia” when her employees killed 31 animals.

Doesn’t that sound just like the how welfarists describe animals used for food, as long as they don’t suffer when you kill them, it is ok to kill and eat them.

Approximately 6 to 8 million animals are handled by animal shelters in the United States each year. Even though some are reclaimed or adopted, nearly 4 million unwanted dogs and cats are left with nowhere to go. Shelters cannot humanely house and support all these animals until their natural deaths—they would be forced to live in cramped cages or kennels for years, lonely and stressed, and other animals would have to be turned away because there would not be room for them.

Turning unwanted animals loose to roam the streets is not a humane option. If they don’t starve, freeze, get hit by a car, or die of disease, they may be tormented and possibly killed by cruel juveniles or picked up by dealers who obtain animals to sell to laboratories.

Good and Bad Solutions
Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus” and unwanted. PETA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States concur that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals. The American Humane Association considers this to be the only acceptable method of euthanasia for cats and dogs in animal shelters.

LIES. or Creative truth telling?

Many good shelters, struggle to get by on extremely limited funds, that do not kill animals brought in to them. But, housing animals in good conditions costs more money than PETA want to spend on animals, that they could be spending on celebrities instead.

PETA also gives awards to slaughter-house designers.

In 2004 PETA awarded Temple Grandin with a Proggy (progress) Award, as a Visionary. This is part of the reason they gave for awarding a slaughterhouse designer a PETA award:

Dr. Grandin consults with the livestock industry and the American Meat Institute on the design of slaughterhouses! However, Dr. Grandin’s improvements to animal-handling systems found in slaughterhouses have decreased the amount of fear and pain that animals experience in their final hours, and she is widely considered the world’s leading expert on the welfare of cattle and pigs.

When you design a more efficient slaughterhouse, the result is animals are slaughtered more efficiently, which means more animals are killed. This does not sound “visionary” to anyone who believes in Animal Liberation.

But then, PETA do take in shelter animals… and kill them, so it is easy to understand how they could be confused between “slaughtering” and “saving”.

As this website PETA Kills Animals
makes clear: Exclusive: PETA’s Pet Killing Program Set a New Record in 2009

During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets. Just eight animals — out of the 2,366 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.

The PETA Kill Animals website also features PETA’s kill statistics from 1998 to 2009, and that figure works out to 299/300 animals are killed by PETA.

While no-kill shelters manage to get by on a fraction of the money PETA get, they do, and they do it without killing 299/300 animals brought in by people who think they are doing the right thing.

Although, as PETA themselves do point out, it is expensive providing a basic standard of care for “surplus” (their word) animals, money that could be better spend chasing celebrities.

As Vegina (the well-respected animal rights activist, Ms Glasser) points out in her blog postplaying to the paparazzi , concerning a circus protest,

A celebrity appearance was arranged for the protest. Activists were not told who was coming but it was requested we not do any chanting until she arrived because she was “sensitive to that sort of thing.”

PETA’s use of celebrities is getting in the way of real activists, doing real work.

UK model, Naomi Campbell appearing in this PETA ad, under the banner, “We’d rather go naked than wear fur”, only to turn up on the catwalk a couple of years later, for Dolce & Gabbana wearing a fur coat… Oops.

DITA Von Teese, burlesque dancer and PETA model, loves her fur, and refuses to give them up, despite her work with PETA:

Dita, who wore fox fur when she performed at the Macy’s Passport AIDS benefit last week, told People magazine: “PETA is totally aware of me wearing fur. I’m not working with PETA to tell people to be vegetarians or to stop wearing fur. I am there to strictly speak about spaying and neutering your pets.”Von Teese won’t give up fur despite working with PETA

Jenna Jameson, PETA model for pleather, yet, kills fish, people see the behaviour of celebrities and it weakens PETAs message, unless their message is “do what we say, and not what we do”.

PETA’s star-studded, once-in-a-lifetime event will celebrate 30 years of cutting-edge campaigns that have brought about monumental change for animals and are leading to even more progress. This memorable night will feature a celebrity awards presentation, wonderful musical performances and other top-notch entertainment, delectable vegan food, unique silent auction items, and more in a historic and famous Hollywood setting.

Will Temple Grandin be in the running again, has she designed any other ways of efficiently slaughtering animals, that PETA feels she should be award for?

A website set up, to discredit PETA, I am currently researching who is behind this (another major anti-PETA campaign is funded by CCF, Centre for Consumer Freedom, an organisation that represents the meat and dairy industries), has a PETA vice president quoted on the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

How much of peoples hard-earned dollars are being wasted on this garbage of celebrity worship? Money that people donate a few dollars at time, thinking they are making a difference in the life-or-death of an animal? Would they be disappointed to find out money they slave hard for doing their 60hours a week gets diverted to throwing parties for the rich and famous.

PETA rakes in the money through donations, but do they spend any of it on animals, any, at all? But why spend money saving animals, when PETA could be out there making soft porn to sell vegetarianism?

Vegetarians? Did I miss something? Dairy, eggs, honey, are all vegetarian food products which inflict intolerable cruelty on the cows, chickens and bees involved.

I think you meant GO VEGAN, didn’t you?

PETA quote often uses naked women to promote vegetarianism. These ads and promotions are so ubiquitous, that I will not repeat any more of them here. They use naked women to promote tofu, circuses, fur coats, and many more causes. There isn’t an issue that PETA doesn’t promote using naked women.

But then, PETA’s agenda is never about VEGANISM, as Ingrid Newkirk herself has allegedly said (quoted on the website TMZ)

PETA big cheese Ingrid Newkirk tells TMZ she’s got no beef with steakhouses — she’s been to the STK in New York herself.

Although, what is more likely, they are promoting PETA, rather than anything to do with animals.

How about some more naked women to promote VEGANISM, and actually make a difference on behalf of animals?

If being naked was a sign of empowerment, why doesn’t President Obama turn up to the oval office in his underwear, and on the topic of empowerment – Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Senator Hillary Clinton, former Governor Sarah Palin and Oprah, these are powerful women, and I notice they often wear clothes.

Comparing womens’ bodies to meat, does more to objectify women, or commodify women than it does to convince anyone to give up meat. It seems like all it would do is convince patriarchal meat-eaters to objectify women even more.

And yet, as a registered charity, what PETA does is tax-deductible. What they do is being subsidised by the tax payers, every publicity stunt, every naked woman, every dead dog, it seems from my perspective, that it is all about how much money PETA can make. And if I am wrong, I will be prepared to stand corrected.

Attacking PETA though, feels a little strange, I mean, how often do Animal Rights Activists say we need to stop the infighting. On the other hand, I can’t just support someone because they say they are for animals, when clearly they are not. And, they do have some useful resources and by that I mean ‘free’, which does help some people, but there comes a point when they are not just merely getting in the way of real vegans and AR people, but they are doing more damage than good.

And no one should have to unquestioningly support a pseudo-Animal Rights group, just because they say they are for animals.

—————————————————————————————————————
Articles copyright 2010 ‘Vegan Animal Liberation Alliance’. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Written by RedGlitter of VALA https://redglitterx.wordpress.com/

I’m talking “ethical vegetarians”, if you are vegetarian for religious, health, taste, weight-loss, family or economic reasons or whatever your reason is, I admire the difficult stand you take in a world dominated by the meat and dairy industries. Eating less meat for whatever reason, you are doing a wonderful thing.

However, Reading a lot of vegetarian online blogs recently, and what gets me is how they think they have a “lifestyle”, how tough life is for them, with lots of people offering advice on how to “survive a vegetarian emergency” or how to travel as a vegetarian, how to survive a dinner with a meat eater … All I can say is W-T-F?

How hard is to take the meat off your plate. Because that is the only change to a life. If you say you are vegetarian “for the animals” but that is the only change you make to life, taking the meat off your plate, without taking a closer look at the battery chickens that produce your eggs, the sheep that produce your wool or slaughtered to produce your Ugg boots, or veritable Noah’s Ark of animals slaughtered to produce leather, or the absolute sadism involved in milk.

If someone says they are vegetarian for the animals, they must know that animals suffer for their food, clothes, personal care products, and so many other products, then why not take the next step. Life isn’t hard, you’re barely making any changes at all.

You’re a vegetarian not a vegan, take the meat out! How hard is that?

How complicated is to take a moral stand on the ethics of eating animals when the daily life of a dairy cow is insanely more cruel than for beef cattle.

I know that I hate the “corpse-muncher” comments, and believe there is a more effective way to get people to change their diets, away from death-for-profit eggs, dairy and meat, let’s just stop with the whining about how hard life is as an ethical vegetarian. While I admire your stance regarding the eating of meat, take the next step.

There are approximately 9.6 million animals euthanised in the United States… the bulk of these animals for no reason except the expense it takes to care for them long enough to find them homes….

This is just the animals rejected at the shelters – in one country.

Why does this not shock people? How about the fact that the majority of these are killed/murdered/slaughtered by ASPCA, PETA and HSUS – The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and The Humane Society of the United States.

MUST SEE VIDEO!. ASPCA, PETA AND HSUS .. EUTHANIZATION “THE COVER UP”

How “humane”, “ethical” or “cruelty prevention” is the deliberate preventable deaths of almost 10 million animals?

Questions need to be asked before anyone hands over their donations as to exactly where they spend that money.

Just like you would for any charity or animal organisation, a pretty name can disguise their real agenda.

The disadvantage with turning celebrities who say they are vegan or vegetarian is how quickly they can turn around, after they have been built up as heros of the vegan movement, making vegans look foolish for worshipping these people.

Drew Barrymore, once lauded as a champion of animal rights, from not shaving under her arms when a movie company supplied on Gillette products, to a few short years later, turns up wearing fur for Guess ads in Vogue magazine to eating bacon, promoting Cover Girl which tests on animals.

To point out that eating bacon and wearing cosmetics tested on animals isn’t vegan, and people shout you down, about being the “vegan police”. But where in the definition of veganism does it say that vegans exclude all animal products, for all reasons – except for celebrities.

If people see these celebrities who wear fur, eat cheese and claim to be vegan, it completely weakens what the word “vegan” means. It weakens it to the point that it ceases to exist, and might as well be meaningless if it does not mean what it means.

It also means, any celebrity buying a vegetarian-friendly product is now responsible for upholding the values that fans project onto them, whether they hold those values or not.

Pamela Anderson, a PETA pin-up model, for a range of causes, from anti-sealing and anti fur, as well as a lettuce lady, promoting vegetarianism… also wears uggboots, made from dead sheep. Pictured below is Pamela Anderson in her ugg boots.

Pamela Anderson, left, in Uggboots, and Pink, right

[ETA (edited to add the following twitter picture: ]

That is the thing with role models, they are humans first, and turning humans into role models means they can’t be human.